Orissa High Court
Rajendra Prasad Prusty vs Acp-Cum-Addl. Chief Secretary on 28 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.15604 of 2022
Rajendra Prasad Prusty .... Petitioner
Mr. Bidyadhar Mansingh, Advocate
-versus-
ACP-cum-Addl. Chief Secretary, .... Opposite Parties
Department of Agriculture and
Farmer's Empowerment,
Bhubaneswar and another
Mr.P.C. Das, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA
ORDER
28.06.2022
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel
for the State.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner
challenging the order of transfer dated 21.06.2022 (Annexure-2)
passed by the Deputy Secretary to Govt., Department of Agriculture
& Farmers, Empowerment, Govt. of Odisha, Bhubaneswar-O.P.
No.1. Under the impugned order, the Petitioner has been transferred
from Agriculture Engineering Division, Koraput to MD, OAIC Ltd.,
Bhubaneswar. Further learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
after 8 months of joining the new station, Petitioner has been
transferred to a new place. It is also submitted that Petitioner is a
heart patient and is undergoing treatment frequently. As regard his
// 2 //
health conditions, he filed medical documents, which are filed in the
writ petition as Anneuxre-6 series
4. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submits that in view of the provision contained in Orissa Service,
Code, the Petitioner should not be disturbed towards the fag end of
his service career unless there is some administrative exigencies. He
further submits that apart from that when Petitioner's health
condition is not good, if the Petitioner is allowed to join in the
present place of posting, he will find difficulty to prepare his pension
paper. Accordingly, he prayed before this Hon'ble Court that the
said impugned order may be stayed in the interest of justice.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that
transfer is a condition of service. The Petitioner should not avoid or
object to the same. It is further submitted that the present writ
petition has been filed challenging the order of transfer and
therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable, as Petitioner
has not approached the appropriate authority.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission and the limited
grievance in the present petition, this Court feels it appropriate to
dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission with a direction
to the Petitioner to file a detailed representation along with all
supporting documents highlighting the grievance of the Petitioner
within a period of ten days from today along with certified copy of
this order. In such event, the Authority shall consider the same
strictly in accordance with law and as per the judgments relied upon
by the Petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter. Opposite
Party No.1 is further directed to consider the representation of the
Petitioner (Anneuxre-3) in the light of law governing the field and
// 3 //
shall dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
The decision so taken shall be communicated to the Petitioner within
a period of ten days thereafter. Further it is directed that the
impugned order under Annexure-2 shall not be given effect to till the
Opposite Party No.1 takes a decision on the representation of the
Petitioner as directed by this Court hereinabove. In the event
Petitioner shall not be relieved from the post, he shall not be relieved
without leave of this Court.
7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed
of.
8. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
U.K.Sahoo
